Popular mechanics has already been debunked in this and others threads ... but for the record ...
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Oh and folks ... I don't know if I posted this or not so I will ... this is a great MP3 ... Charles Goyette's Popular Mechanics 9/11 Interview causes cancellation of later interviews.
Listen to this MP3 file of Popular Mechanics on the Charles Goyette show in Phoenix. Charles has him backpedaling big time. Pass this MP3 file to any one who is leaning on Popular Mechanics to support their continued belief in the official story:
This is a great interview folks ... he really creams this PM guy ... they(PM) are very defensive about the article now ... check out the MP3 of the caller ... it's great!
So much for PM ... scientists? and prey tell us what Richard Gage is? And what part of his theory is "pseudoscience" you like to call names and give labels but that's it ... you never explain specifically what parts of Gage's presentation or any other evidence posted is "pseudoscience" and you know why? Because you can't. As usual you continue to blow shit out your ass.
I note you don't actually refute any evidence I give... you simply attribute it to "not like me". I have challenged you to give me your best piece of evidence, and work backwards as we go down the road of logic and science together. It seems like a simple ask.
You haven't address anything other than saying it's incorrect or "tin hat" yet each and every time you fail to show why the evidence presented is incorrect put up or stfu. So far you come up with unexplained pictures with NO LINKS to the source ... so as far as I'm concerned you are still full of shit.
I am sorry, I guess I assume that if I show you a melted steel framed structure, I presume you have the tools necessary to comprehend that a bridge collapsing is NOT a product of government propaganda. Please highlight ANY of the evidence I have shown you, and I will gladly give you whatever information you require, without psycho nutjobs making up reasons why it "might" have happened.
Here is the fundamental problem with us arguing. I show you flight maps, readily available to all pilots, before and after 9/11... and because I disagree with you... you simply dismiss them as "lies" because they are contrary to your prior concept. This is troublesome for me, in my position. What WILL you accept as real, or proof, beyond what you currently accept? That is a tough order to fill. You are incapable of accepting that ANYBODY who believes as you do is wrong, or that ANYTHING in direct contrast to your belief system is genuine.
It is like trying to explain to a devout catholic who has never read the bible, the contradictions therein. You FAITH conspiracy. It is very hard for us on the rational side of reality.
You wouldn't know what I posted is crap or not you don't bother to check ... and that's your problem ... you can't read or comprehend the obvious. My goal is not to convince you of anything. My mission is to show every one just how stupid you are ... and I'm doing I find job when you deny the obvious. And you still haven't shown at any time how the material I've posted has been discredited. So here again you are blowing it out you ass like so many of your kind do.
You are guilty precisely of that which you accuse me. Here is the primary difference between us. You copy and paste mountains of erroneous information. You are unwilling to acknowledge those things which I clearly demonstrate as BS. You continue to derive from the sources I have shown to promote BS, as if it is unimportant.
If I point you to a link, which explains an event, and something in that link were shown to be incorrect... I will not continue to point to things within that link... because it is evident that for whatever reason... the writer is more concerned with being RIGHT than CORRECT. I have to continue to accept sources which are KNOWINGLY lying... or irreparably ignorant to the facts. At that point, my source becomes an irreparable source.
Yours becomes a victim of conspiracy.
Folks you see how twisted the bushwhacked minded are. They love to project their short coming on to others. When you provide your source they call it copying and pasting ... when they copy and paste their bullshit without providing the source ... it's proof. Bwaa ha ha ha ... they are so funny. 
First and foremost... each image (right click and choose "properties" will tell you the link source) was almost exclusively grabbed from pro 9/11 conspiracy sources. Call them bullshit all you like.
I am a different animal. I call a spade a spade. I am anti-Bush (I and II for the record). Nothing you presume about me is accurate.
Tell me about your father.
I'm still waiting for you to show the material I've posted is bullshit other than saying it is ... show us why ... and what source you have to back your statements ... if you continue with material that has already been debunked in this thread it will not be accepted. Go back and look at the posts regarding PM.
I have. You are a little bit loony. You have yet to address a SINGLE piece of my evidence. Pick one bitch. Put up or shut up... remember? Pick.
I've already told you ... if you are too stupid to comprehend my answer that's not my problem.
Looked... gone back and looked. Gone back again and looked. Please re-post as I seem to have lost the ability to comprehend.
Well I can't call you ignorant because I have presenting you with facts, because you have the facts and disregard the obvious I can legally call you stupid.
English. Evidently it escapes you that it is both a people AND a language... because that ain't either. Please restate and I will do my best to address it.
However I must confess I'm mistaken about the use of term restricted air space what I mean to say is those area are secure air space may be the correct term. But I know it's has it's defenses.
Again, you are incorrect. I adore the fact that you are willing, at least, to accept that you misused a term. The journey of 1000 miles begins with that first step.
No... there is no "secure" airspace outside of "restricted" in the United States.
I cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you to discredit it. I have simply made a statement. Show me, in the entire expance of their history, when a jet has intercepted an airliner in less than 45 minutes.
There are videos of all three buildings ... yeah ... that's not what you thought! Ha ha ... and here again you are being stupid ... 15 sec for a building design to withstand what happen ... to believe anything else is just plain stupid. And I will call anyone stupid that believes these building fell in 15 sec after burning less than 2 hours in a fire not hot enough to do the damage that was done. Still waiting for you to address Gage's presentation ... but as usual you won't ... because you can't! ha ha!
Happy to. As I said... I like to go one thing at a time. Is this to be your choice for the first? You have simply to proclaim it... then we can go in turns.
Good for her ... why don't you have her put you in the bitch seat and take ya for a spin? Ha ha ... just joking ... 
I have flown right seat more than you have flown. That I can just about guarantee.
You might as well save this shit because there is no way on earth you can prove it. You have yet to make me look nearly as stupid as I have made you.
Still waiting on your response to Gage. Until you do so you will remain stupid in this thread.
Funny how one demonstrates their intellect to you. So be it. I will take Gage's argument as your first... presuming you do not object. Then you will address a single argument of mine. As my math works, I have addressed over a dozen of yours. The 3 of mine you have been proven wrong. As math goes... I am winning so far... but then winning is easy when you do not have to re-invent.
Thank for posting ... good material ... bet they can't find a building ... let watch kids at home.
